Should trains have yellow rear ends to reduce collisions?

[AndrewE]

But people make mistakes sometimes. Anything that can mitigate against mistakes (or their potential consequences), should attract consideration at least.

I agree, the unit ends have to be painted anyway so it might as well be yellow, which could be useful in some circumstances.

Thailand doing it to all coaches is interesting, but obviously it won't work for freight vehicles, but still "every little helps!"

@Sorcerer makes a good point that an unbiased review would be worth doing - although I think I would use that to decide whether a campaign was justified (at some cost) rather than just changing the rules and converting to yellow ends as maintenance/overhauls proceed.

 

[Fidelis]

I agree, the unit ends have to be painted anyway so it might as well be yellow, which could be useful in some circumstances. Thailand doing it to all coaches is interesting, but obviously it won't work for freight vehicles, but still "every little helps!"
@Sorcerer makes a good point that an unbiased review would be worth doing - although I think I would use that to decide whether a campaign was justified (at some cost) rather than just changing the rules and converting to yellow ends as maintenance/overhauls proceed.

I am unsure if the case for painting rear carriages yellow is strengthened by the photos of the recent crashed units showing the stationary unit rear was painted yellow. We must avoid visual overload as presented by bright rear lights on current motor cars in the USA.

 

[43096]

Red rears were never designed for high visibility - indeed freights can just have a small flashing battery lamp. They are just to let the signaller know the train has passed them complete.

If they were for visibility you'd need a bit of a rethink.

Red tail lights are the last line of defence for a collision.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Has any recent thought been given to the possibility of red rear lights being more intense or perhaps pulsating, when a train is stationary?

 

[Zomboid]

I am unsure if the case for painting rear carriages yellow is strengthened by the photos of the recent crashed units showing the stationary unit rear was painted yellow. We must avoid visual overload as presented by bright rear lights on current motor cars in the USA.

The 360 was the one which hit the stationary (grey ended) 810. Had it been the other way round this thread wouldn't exist.

 

[spyinthesky]

How many collisions would have been reduced historically?
We really need eliminate human error.

 

[positron]

It will be hard to prove the yellow ends requirement made railways safer because it's decades of yellow fronts versus a few years of non-yellow fronts, and the stock using the later have significantly brighter headlights so there's no common baseline for visibility. Also there aren't many if any other countries that have used them on such a mass scale for safety reasons.

There's many other factors behind railway safety beyond just painting the cab ends a certain bright colour, especially when the original visibility concern was a dark night, not a bright clear late afternoon. I'd like a proper evidence-based report on this personally.

To be fair as a counterpoint the UK also has one of the safest railways in the world. If a bit of paint or a small vinyl wrap can help mitigate the effects of a mistake or system failure then it seems a no brainer. GWRs 80Xs all have yellow ends and they don't seem any uglier to me than the ones without the yellow ends. Not that aesthetics should ever be a factor in a safety component.

The UK railway often seems to focus on preventing the crashes in the first place but a mitigation that might help decrease the fallout (a few mph slower impact) that has essentially no downside seems a no brainer. Perhaps we don't need a yellow end requirement but a light colour would be useful. Avanti's 80X ends always seem too dark to me, but then I'm used to the yellow.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jun 2026 ==

How many collisions would have been reduced historically?
We really need eliminate human error.

I do agree with this though, it seems unbelievable that our signaling system can still allow a train to pass at danger going at such a high speed. I know there's other threads for this but stuff like rolling out TPWS further definitely needs more consideration.

 

[Nym]

How many collisions would have been reduced historically?
We really need eliminate human error.

Then the answer it seems is simple. Fit a TPS grid to every signal to act as a train stop for any SPAD.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Then the answer it seems is simple. Fit a TPS grid to every signal to act as a train stop for any SPAD.

This would certainly work, though the huge cost might save more lives were it spent on fixing road junctions with high numbers of serious accidents.

 

[Nym]

This would certainly work, though the huge cost might save more lives were it spent on fixing road junctions with high numbers of serious accidents.

But that would be a different budget…

In reality. It seems we may have been trapped by the ever present. “But ETCS is coming soon to fix that.”

 

[Mike Machin]

Experts, designers and bosses will all have their opinions on this matter, but the easiest way to tackle this subject is to have a referendum amongst operating staff.

Set up a poll amongst all of those who work with trains day in, day out and be guided by their opinion. The ballot should include all of those who daily come into contact with trains as part of their everyday work, so this should include all Network Rail track maintenance staff, drivers, guards, station platform team members and those working in depots.

A simple ‘Yes/No’ vote is all that’s needed and the decision should be binding.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This would certainly work, though the huge cost might save more lives were it spent on fixing road junctions with high numbers of serious accidents.

But that would be a different budget…

In reality. It seems we may have been trapped by the ever present. “But ETCS is coming soon to fix that.”

I've created a new thread to go into this further: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/looking-at-transport-safety-budgets-as-a-whole.303907/

 

[positron]

But that would be a different budget…

In reality. It seems we may have been trapped by the ever present. “But ETCS is coming soon to fix that.”

Thing is ETCS isn't even the panacea as shown by Talerddig.

TPWS on more signals might provide a better cost benefit, but you still end up in a situation where you might have a SPAD that leads to a dangerous encounter and anything that can help with visibility should be considered imo, so yellow ends still makes sense to me, unless we reach a true ETCS everywhere with the extras recommended by RAIB and with magnetic breaks etc so there's no possibility of a crash.

 

[WAO]

Making the rear of a train effectively "Hi-Vis" yellow is really falling back on the last line of safety, driving by "line of sight".

We do have a form of this in the battery powered red tail lamp. However, these do not seem uniform, with freight vehicles having the brightly flashing tail lamp, replacing the oil lamps of past generations. Are the integral MU lamps of equal specification? (The 360 appears to have a lamp iron fitted, presumably for being towed dead).

Surely any risk analysis for a >100mph main line would require at least comprehensive TPWS because of collision risk with a failed train.

A further point on train ends is the difference in buffing gear between classes. The 360's have friction buffers presumably on the underframe ends which would absorb much of a collision impact. The 810, once its cowl is retracted appears only to have the Dellner coupling, making the unit into a spear!

My sympathies with the driver's family and his colleagues.

WAO

 

[swt_passenger]

Making the rear of a train effectively "Hi-Vis" yellow is really falling back on the last line of safety, driving by "line of sight".

We do have a form of this in the battery powered red tail lamp. However, these do not seem uniform, with freight vehicles having the brightly flashing tail lamp, replacing the oil lamps of past generations. Are the integral MU lamps of equal specification? (The 360 appears to have a lamp iron fitted, presumably for being towed dead).

Surely any risk analysis for a >100mph main line would require at least comprehensive TPWS because of collision risk with a failed train.

A further point on train ends is the difference in buffing gear between classes. The 360's have friction buffers presumably on the underframe ends which would absorb much of a collision impact. The 810, once its cowl is retracted appears only to have the Dellner coupling, making the unit into a spear!

My sympathies with the driver's family and his colleagues.

WAO

I believe all modern units have matching override prevention blocks, some are 100% visible (like Desiro variants), and some are completely hidden behind a lightweight GRP cover that disintegrates when they are impacted by another train.

Are there any online photos of an 80x front end beneath the GRP? I’m also thinking the Dellner couplings telescope inwards under impact. Google finds descriptions of this as ‘irreversible deformation’.

 

[JamesT]

I believe all modern units have matching override prevention blocks, some are 100% visible (like Desiro variants), and some are completely hidden behind a lightweight GRP cover that disintegrates when they are impacted by another train.

Are there any online photos of an 80x front end beneath the GRP? I’m also thinking the Dellner couplings telescope inwards under impact. Google finds descriptions of this as ‘irreversible deformation’.

https://www.dawlishtrains.com/class-800-802.html appears to have a few of some 80x being constructed, does that have the detail you're looking for?

 

[swt_passenger]

https://www.dawlishtrains.com/class-800-802.html appears to have a few of some 80x being constructed, does that have the detail you're looking for?

Thanks for the link. I’m not sure but I think there is one pic that shows an extension of a heavy duty rectangular structure that seems to be in the right place. I think the position of the anti-override (or anti-climb) blocks is more obvious on the Hitachi 395, because there’s a visible bulge in the fairing either side. It seems a long way behind the Dellner in its usual position, but we know that gets forced back.

 

[Sorcerer]

To be fair as a counterpoint the UK also has one of the safest railways in the world. If a bit of paint or a small vinyl wrap can help mitigate the effects of a mistake or system failure then it seems a no brainer. GWRs 80Xs all have yellow ends and they don't seem any uglier to me than the ones without the yellow ends. Not that aesthetics should ever be a factor in a safety component.

The UK railway often seems to focus on preventing the crashes in the first place but a mitigation that might help decrease the fallout (a few mph slower impact) that has essentially no downside seems a no brainer. Perhaps we don't need a yellow end requirement but a light colour would be useful. Avanti's 80X ends always seem too dark to me, but then I'm used to the yellow.

This is true, but there are multiple factors behind railway safety such as signalling technology and driving techniques. I've noticed on the continent the doors may sometimes open before the train even comes to a complete stop, which surely has to lead to more accidents and injuries than how we just stop a train and unlock the doors after coming to a full stand at the platform?

I am open to the idea of yellow being statistically safer but I also wonder if some older drivers might just be so used to seeing it after so many years. Personally I'm indifferent to the idea of yellow but I do sometimes feel like it's safety might be getting overstated and that some people might be so set in the old ways they are averse to the new, which isn't entirely irrational to be fair.

 

[WAO]

Nature's way to warn (and 08 shunters') is to use yellow and black stripes diagonally - says "I sting!)

WAO

 

[The exile]

How many collisions would have been reduced historically?
We really need eliminate human error.

Good luck with that. Reduce it and its impact, yes, but until we render ourstt er lives completely redundant there will always room for human error somewhere in a process.

 

[spyinthesky]

This would certainly work, though the huge cost might save more lives were it spent on fixing road junctions with high numbers of serious accidents.

The biggest problem with road junctions are the humans that use them.
Removing human error on the railway should be possible, removing it from our highways is impossible.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jun 2026 ==

Good luck with that. Reduce it and its impact, yes, but until we render ourstt er lives completely redundant there will always room for human error somewhere in a process.

And the human error should be remedied by stopping a train before it hits something else.
A bit of yellow paint might please some but it is only good till the next incident when we will add another knee-jerk idea and so on.

 

[Narrowgauge725]

Sorry but that is why we have signals to stop two trains colliding. A yellow panel was and has never been for this purpose.

 

[43096]

We really need eliminate human error.

You cannot eliminate human error.

 

[Wolfie]

You cannot eliminate human error.

Absolutely. You can impose procedures which minimise it but you can never completely stop it.

 

[JamesT]

Absolutely. You can impose procedures which minimise it but you can never completely stop it.

Unless, as already mentioned, you remove human decision making from the operation.

 

[coppercapped]

Unless, as already mentioned, you remove human decision making from the operation.

You may remove human error from the immediate operation, but it is still potentially present in the design, manufacture, installation and maintenance of all the components making up the system. Human error can never be completely eliminated.

 

[WAO]

You may remove human error from the immediate operation, but it is still potentially present in the design, manufacture, installation and maintenance of all the components making up the system. Human error can never be completely eliminated.

Yes, and who writes the software?
Even AI has human authors who can come up with AI (Absolute Idiocy).
No risk, no reward.

WAO

 

[Wolfie]

You may remove human error from the immediate operation, but it is still potentially present in the design, manufacture, installation and maintenance of all the components making up the system. Human error can never be completely eliminated.

Absolutely. Something which rather too.many people refuse to acknowledge.

Mitigate, mitigate and then mitigate some more.....

 

[AndrewE]

Absolutely. Something which rather too.many people refuse to acknowledge.

Mitigate, mitigate and then mitigate some more.....

but not to the point where your railway is disproportionately expensive or so safe that it is too slow to be worth using (e.g. the contribution made by the "ceremony of the doors") and, as pointed out upthread, people then go by much less safe modes of transport instead.

 

[Fidelis]

The 360 was the one which hit the stationary (grey ended) 810. Had it been the other way round this thread wouldn't exist.

The BBC on Saturday posted an photo of the impact and it shows 60115 rear painted yellow crushed by 810015. So unless its a AI image the rear was yellow not grey.